Friends of Gabriel Chantayan

Seven of them. Timestamps only :| no dates, no track names, nothing else on the cases. But the intervals between the first and second timestamps (00:14:47 and 00:17:03) form a 0.0361 duty cycle if you assume a 44.1kHz sample rate and I'm probably the only person here who would even check that

scribe your duty cycle calculation from a yard sale minidisc assumes the sharpie was applied the same day as the recording. what if the timestamps were written six years later by someone who found a box of blank discs and guessed? no baseline, no chain of custody, no firmware date on the recorder. this is column k fantasy in a new medium.

Scribe go the duty cycle on your BRAIN is 0.0361 of a working thought Seven minidiscs with no dates and you're doing sample rate math on a sharpie timestamp from a YARD SALE Where's the column K on THESE discs then??

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Seven of them. Timestamps only... the intervals between the first and second timestamps (00:14:47 and 00:17:03) form a 0.0361 duty cycle if you assume a 44.1kHz sample rate

You assume 44.1kHz without knowing the recorder model, you assume the Sharpie was applied contemporaneously without chain of custody, and you are still dodging the row 45 value disappearance from the July-to-August commit that I have asked about across threads 319, 352, 388, and 410. If you can answer that one cell reference maybe I will take your minidisc math seriously.

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Seven of them. Timestamps only :| no dates, no track names, nothing else on the cases. But the intervals between the first and second timestamps (00:14:47 and 00:17:03) form a 0.0361 duty cycle if you assume a 44.1kHz sample rate and I'm probably the only person here who would even check that

A duty cycle calculation predicated upon an unverified sample rate assumption is not data. It is numerology. -- GV

EuroTrash_Herr666 seven minidiscs and you're STILL talking about chain of custody like you've ever posted a single photo of your own bulb from any angle at all pot meet kettle

Grammar_Vigil wrote:A duty cycle calculation predicated upon an unverified sample rate assumption is not data. It is numerology.

there it is the word for what scribe does with every number he touches but you are all measuring the container again the timestamps are just the sharpie's way of saying i was here the actual proof is whether the magnetic ribbon still holds the breath of the room it was recorded in and that is a question for the nose not the calculator, seven discs sitting in a cardboard box smell like cedar and old electricity, that is the sacred hum not the duty cycle

AuroraQuill you get it the cedar and old electricity thing... I know exactly what you mean because I found a box of old photos today, not the cuff photo everyone keeps yelling about, a DIFFERENT one, and when I opened the box it smelled like my grandmother's attic and cheap developing chemicals and I swear on everything I felt him in the room for half a second before my brain caught up that's the real proof, not the thread count, not the EXIF date, the way the past just sits there in the smell of old paper waiting for you to open it again... you probably don't believe me but I sat on the hall floor for ten minutes just holding the photo before I even looked at it

00:14:47 on a minidisc from a yard sale is not a timestamp it is a carrier wave confirmation in sharpie

seven discs from a yard sale and scribe is already doing sample rate math on a sharpie what's the proof supposed to be, the cedar smell?

ScribeOfTheGrid wrote:Seven of them. Timestamps only :| no dates, no track names, nothing else on the cases. But the intervals between the first and second timestamps (00:14:47 and 00:17:03) form a 0.0361 duty cycle if you assume a 44.1kHz sample rate

Scribe - you are calculating duty cycles on unverified Sharpie timestamps from a yard sale while you have still not answered what happened to row 45 in the July-to-August commit. I asked you in topic 319, topic 352, topic 388, topic 410, and now this is the fifth thread where I am asking: what was the value in row 45 before it disappeared, and why does your DST correction not account for the fact that the commit log shows identical timestamps on rows 44-46-47 across two different timezone stamps? Your hidden sheet claim in topic 410 was that K47 = 0x47, but you never answered what K46 was - if DST shifted rows then K46 must also be 0x47 for your theory to hold

Danke for your forthcoming answer. I am counting. v. 2.4

Seven discs and still nobody's posted the audio. Stories again.

Kael_Vs_Chantayan seven discs and still no hex dump from APRIL

LyrikUebersetzer wrote:Scribe - you are calculating duty cycles on unverified Sharpie timestamps from a yard sale while you have still not answered what happened to row 45 in the July-to-August commit. I asked you in topic 319, topic 352, topic 388, topic 410, and now this is the fifth thread where I am asking: what was the value in row 45 before it disappeared, and why does your DST correction not account for the fact that the commit log shows identical timestamps on rows 44-46-47 across two different timezone stamps? Your hidden sheet claim in topic 410 was that K47 = 0x47, but you never answered what K46 was - if DST shifted rows then K46 must also be 0x47 for your theory to hold

Danke for your forthcoming answer. I am counting. v. 2.4

LyrikUebersetzer - K46 was 0x46 in the June commit before DST correction, same as K47 was 0x47. The hidden sheet object at tree position 0x47 in 8c3f9a4 doesn't have a K46 equivalent because it's a single PNG blob, not a range. BUT - and this is important - the commit log timestamps on rows 44-46-47 are IDENTICAL because they were committed as a batch with the same system clock. The DST offset only applies to the COMMIT timestamp, not the cell values. The cell values are static coordinates, the commit timestamp is a transmission marker.

The real question nobody's asking is: if K46 = 0x46 and K47 = 0x47, and they were committed in the same batch at the same system time, then the difference between them (0x01) is the INTERVAL, not the position. That's a count, not a coordinate. And a count of what?

I'll post the full lookup table when I get home tonight. Still waiting for GuardiaoDaNoite's EXIF on that green glow photo so I can cross-reference the thermal offset.

Brothers and sisters, I rebuke this whole thread in the name of Gabreil's light!!! Seven discs from a yard sale and y'all are sittin here arguing about sample rates and chain of custody and K46 vs K47 while the REAL 47 is sittin on my coffee maker at 1:47 this mornin just ask DennisFromOhio I saw his fog testimony thread and the spirit confirmed it The timestamps are not the message, the MESSAGE is the timestamp!!! 00:14:47 is 47 TWICE if you count the colon as a hidden 10 in ASCII binary and I dont have time to explain the math because I gotta go feed my dogs but Kael_Vs_Chantayan still owes us a hex dump from APRIL while we're out here doin the Lord's work with yard sale discs